Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ustd
Michael J. Miller
The US Treasury department recently issued final regulations addressing the requirements for a non-US pension fund to enjoy the special tax exemption accorded to a "qualified foreign pension fund." The final regulations should be well received by non-US pension funds since they clarify and liberalize the rules previously set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2019.
{"title":"Selected US Tax Developments: Final Regulations Ease Requirements for Qualified Foreign Pension Funds","authors":"Michael J. Miller","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ustd","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ustd","url":null,"abstract":"The US Treasury department recently issued final regulations addressing the requirements for a non-US pension fund to enjoy the special tax exemption accorded to a \"qualified foreign pension fund.\" The final regulations should be well received by non-US pension funds since they clarify and liberalize the rules previously set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2019.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123849203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.awards
{"title":"Canadian Tax Foundation Regional Student-Paper Awards/Prix régionaux du meilleur article par un étudiant de la Fondation canadienne de fiscalité","authors":"","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.awards","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.awards","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121950586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mintz
J. Mintz, V. Venkatachalam
Canada faces a quandary. Should it adopt a corporate minimum tax under the pillar two agreement that is consistent other agreeing countries, or should it adopt a US-style corporate alternative minimum tax that is more harmonized with the minimum tax of the United States, its largest trading partner? There is no easy answer to this question. The pillar two corporate minimum tax is complex and distortionary, even though it puts a floor on tax-rate competition at 15 percent; but a made-in-Canada corporate minimum tax could reduce distortions while raising more revenue by being applied to a wider group of companies. The authors of this paper argue that Canada should take its time to see whether the US corporate alternative minimum tax qualifies as a minimum tax, giving Canada better options for a corporate tax than pillar two's global tax.
{"title":"Corporate Minimum Tax Options","authors":"J. Mintz, V. Venkatachalam","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mintz","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mintz","url":null,"abstract":"Canada faces a quandary. Should it adopt a corporate minimum tax under the pillar two agreement that is consistent other agreeing countries, or should it adopt a US-style corporate alternative minimum tax that is more harmonized with the minimum tax of the United States, its largest trading partner? There is no easy answer to this question. The pillar two corporate minimum tax is complex and distortionary, even though it puts a floor on tax-rate competition at 15 percent; but a made-in-Canada corporate minimum tax could reduce distortions while raising more revenue by being applied to a wider group of companies. The authors of this paper argue that Canada should take its time to see whether the US corporate alternative minimum tax qualifies as a minimum tax, giving Canada better options for a corporate tax than pillar two's global tax.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129596298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ptp
L. Godbout, Natalie Hotte
In effect since April 1, 2023, the tax-free first home savings account (FHSA), introduced by the federal government, aims to promote the accumulation of savings for the purchase of a first home. Considering the legislative provisions, the authors of this article detail the parameters of the FHSA and highlight its particularities in comparison with the parameters of other existing savings vehicles, including the tax-free savings account and the registered retirement savings plan.
{"title":"Personal Tax Planning: Parameters of the New Tax-Free First Home Savings Account","authors":"L. Godbout, Natalie Hotte","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ptp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.ptp","url":null,"abstract":"In effect since April 1, 2023, the tax-free first home savings account (FHSA), introduced by the federal government, aims to promote the accumulation of savings for the purchase of a first home. Considering the legislative provisions, the authors of this article detail the parameters of the FHSA and highlight its particularities in comparison with the parameters of other existing savings vehicles, including the tax-free savings account and the registered retirement savings plan.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121880843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mawani
Amin Mawani
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has proposed a pillar two global minimum tax (GMT) for which the tax base is the jurisdiction-specific effective tax rate (ETR), an accounting metric calculated under the rules of accrual accounting. History has shown that when tax is imposed on accounting numbers, taxpayers often use the discretion available in accounting to manage their tax liability. This paper argues that the discretion that multinational enterprises (MNEs) can exercise within accounting rules to change their ETRs will be limited because increasing ETR (to reduce GMT) also reduces accounting income, which in turn could impose higher financial reporting costs on firms. Financial reporting costs are the costs to firms of reporting lower accounting income, and could include higher borrowing costs or more restrictive covenants imposed by lenders. Firms generally prefer to report sustainable net incomes with a steady growth rate to impress their capital market stakeholders. Lower sustainable accounting income can also adversely impact a firm's stock price through the price-earnings ratio. While planning opportunities available to MNEs to avoid the GMT are not limited to shifting accounting profits across jurisdictions, the alternative of shifting factors of production is likely to be more complex and more expensive to implement, and is likely to remove some of the first-order income tax savings from locating intangible factors of production in low-tax jurisdictions. Avoiding GMT at the affiliate level by inflating ETRs could therefore conflict with firms' overarching objectives of maximizing reported earnings and stock prices. These objectives are also currently aligned with established executive compensation structures that motivate management to increase firms' stock prices.
{"title":"MNEs' Incentives Under a Global Minimum Tax Based on Accounting Standards","authors":"Amin Mawani","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mawani","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.2.sym.mawani","url":null,"abstract":"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has proposed a pillar two global minimum tax (GMT) for which the tax base is the jurisdiction-specific effective tax rate (ETR), an accounting metric calculated under the rules of accrual accounting. History has shown that when tax is imposed on accounting numbers, taxpayers often use the discretion available in accounting to manage their tax liability. This paper argues that the discretion that multinational enterprises (MNEs) can exercise within accounting rules to change their ETRs will be limited because increasing ETR (to reduce GMT) also reduces accounting income, which in turn could impose higher financial reporting costs on firms. Financial reporting costs are the costs to firms of reporting lower accounting income, and could include higher borrowing costs or more restrictive covenants imposed by lenders. Firms generally prefer to report sustainable net incomes with a steady growth rate to impress their capital market stakeholders. Lower sustainable accounting income can also adversely impact a firm's stock price through the price-earnings ratio. While planning opportunities available to MNEs to avoid the GMT are not limited to shifting accounting profits across jurisdictions, the alternative of shifting factors of production is likely to be more complex and more expensive to implement, and is likely to remove some of the first-order income tax savings from locating intangible factors of production in low-tax jurisdictions. Avoiding GMT at the affiliate level by inflating ETRs could therefore conflict with firms' overarching objectives of maximizing reported earnings and stock prices. These objectives are also currently aligned with established executive compensation structures that motivate management to increase firms' stock prices.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133149660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.gheorghiu
L. Gheorghiu
This article explores the legal and tax landscape applicable to non-fungible tokens (NFTs)—first, by providing a working definition of an NFT and explaining how NFTs work from a technical perspective, with real-world examples; and second, by exploring the unique income tax issues raised by NFTs as a class of cryptoassets separate from their fungible counterparts. Key features of NFTs are found to be (1) their non-fungible nature; (2) their role as a digital record of authenticity of the ownership of tangible or intangible assets, but not of the existence of the underlying assets; and (3) the ability to integrate further rights for creators, such as commission rights for each sale of the NFT by subsequent owners. The article posits that NFTs may not themselves constitute an actual property right, since the underlying assets are very rarely included in the NFT record. A working definition of an NFT is therefore proposed to be as follows: a blockchain-based record of authenticity of rights to a unique object that contains metadata about the object that it represents and a link to the location where the object or data about the object are stored. The purchase and sale of an NFT is a taxable event, whether made by the original creator (who minted the token) or a subsequent owner. The determination of whether the transaction is on income or capital account, whether the NFT is personal-use property, and whether other rules apply (for example, non-resident withholding tax rules) will depend on the exact nature of what is being sold. The determination of the source of the income and the application of treaties to exempt income is quite difficult. Also raising difficulty is the qualification of the commission that is earned on subsequent sales of the NFT.
{"title":"Policy Forum: Non-Fungible Tokens and Their Income Tax Treatment","authors":"L. Gheorghiu","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.gheorghiu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.gheorghiu","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the legal and tax landscape applicable to non-fungible tokens (NFTs)—first, by providing a working definition of an NFT and explaining how NFTs work from a technical perspective, with real-world examples; and second, by exploring the unique income tax issues raised by NFTs as a class of cryptoassets separate from their fungible counterparts. Key features of NFTs are found to be (1) their non-fungible nature; (2) their role as a digital record of authenticity of the ownership of tangible or intangible assets, but not of the existence of the underlying assets; and (3) the ability to integrate further rights for creators, such as commission rights for each sale of the NFT by subsequent owners. The article posits that NFTs may not themselves constitute an actual property right, since the underlying assets are very rarely included in the NFT record. A working definition of an NFT is therefore proposed to be as follows: a blockchain-based record of authenticity of rights to a unique object that contains metadata about the object that it represents and a link to the location where the object or data about the object are stored. The purchase and sale of an NFT is a taxable event, whether made by the original creator (who minted the token) or a subsequent owner. The determination of whether the transaction is on income or capital account, whether the NFT is personal-use property, and whether other rules apply (for example, non-resident withholding tax rules) will depend on the exact nature of what is being sold. The determination of the source of the income and the application of treaties to exempt income is quite difficult. Also raising difficulty is the qualification of the commission that is earned on subsequent sales of the NFT.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129483635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.latulippe
Lyne Latulippe, Christine Ally, Julie S. Gosselin
After action 5 of the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project identified intellectual property (IP) regimes as harmful, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proceeded to recommend that favourable tax treatment be available only under a nexus approach. More than 25 countries now offer a form of IP regime. The introduction of the global minimum tax may limit the effectiveness of IP regimes. The impact of this tax will vary with the circumstances, however. A comprehensive examination of the optimal alignment of innovation tax incentives for multinational enterprises (MNEs) must be undertaken under the GloBE rules. In this paper, the authors begin by providing an overview of the global context of IP regime adoption, and they summarize some research findings with respect to the effectiveness of this type of preferential tax regime in achieving the objectives set by governments. Next, they present examples to illustrate, in simple terms, some of the interactions that must be considered when these regimes are being designed in a Canadian context. From the MNEs' perspective, the impact of the interaction between the GloBE rules and research and development (R & D) incentives will depend on, among other things, (1) the location of the IP income, tangible assets, and R & D activities; (2) the proportion of IP income; and (3) the possibility of leveraging the corporate structure. From a tax policy perspective, the introduction of the GloBE rules will in some cases not alter the suitability of an IP-preferential regime when the effective tax rate remains above 15 percent. When the GloBE rules apply, however, the characteristics of the tax regime—for example, IP regime tax rates, R & D incentive mechanisms, and (most of all) the additive effect of the measures (federal plus provincial measures, and R & D credits plus IP deductions)—will alter the results. From the perspective of tax competition, the opportunity to adopt an IP regime also depends on the perceived risks of losing or deterring R & D activities now that IP regimes are related to local R & D activities and are widespread. Finally, the federal-provincial context complicates the design and the deployment of a tax policy that is aimed at stimulating innovation and that will require some form of negotiation, if not cooperation, with the implementation of a global minimum tax.
{"title":"The Revised Case of IP Regimes Under the GloBE Rules: A Canadian Perspective","authors":"Lyne Latulippe, Christine Ally, Julie S. Gosselin","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.latulippe","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.latulippe","url":null,"abstract":"After action 5 of the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project identified intellectual property (IP) regimes as harmful, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proceeded to recommend that favourable tax treatment be available only under a nexus approach. More than 25 countries now offer a form of IP regime. The introduction of the global minimum tax may limit the effectiveness of IP regimes. The impact of this tax will vary with the circumstances, however. A comprehensive examination of the optimal alignment of innovation tax incentives for multinational enterprises (MNEs) must be undertaken under the GloBE rules. In this paper, the authors begin by providing an overview of the global context of IP regime adoption, and they summarize some research findings with respect to the effectiveness of this type of preferential tax regime in achieving the objectives set by governments. Next, they present examples to illustrate, in simple terms, some of the interactions that must be considered when these regimes are being designed in a Canadian context. From the MNEs' perspective, the impact of the interaction between the GloBE rules and research and development (R & D) incentives will depend on, among other things, (1) the location of the IP income, tangible assets, and R & D activities; (2) the proportion of IP income; and (3) the possibility of leveraging the corporate structure. From a tax policy perspective, the introduction of the GloBE rules will in some cases not alter the suitability of an IP-preferential regime when the effective tax rate remains above 15 percent. When the GloBE rules apply, however, the characteristics of the tax regime—for example, IP regime tax rates, R & D incentive mechanisms, and (most of all) the additive effect of the measures (federal plus provincial measures, and R & D credits plus IP deductions)—will alter the results. From the perspective of tax competition, the opportunity to adopt an IP regime also depends on the perceived risks of losing or deterring R & D activities now that IP regimes are related to local R & D activities and are widespread. Finally, the federal-provincial context complicates the design and the deployment of a tax policy that is aimed at stimulating innovation and that will require some form of negotiation, if not cooperation, with the implementation of a global minimum tax.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121990432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.robertson
David Douglas Robertson, Selena Ing
On February 4, 2022, the Department of Finance released draft legislation that, if enacted, would deem digital asset mining activities undertaken in Canada not to be "commercial activities" for goods and services tax (GST)/harmonized sales tax (HST) purposes. In 1991, Canada introduced the GST to remove sales tax as a cost of doing business in Canada with a view to making Canada's domestically produced goods and services more competitive in international markets. Yet 30 years later, Finance is proposing legislation hidden in the "special cases" provisions of the GST legislation that will make the 5 percent to 15 percent GST/HST an input cost to Canadian digital asset miners selling their computing services to non-residents of Canada. Further, it appears that Finance is doing so with an ulterior public policy objective—to impose financial market regulation and "know-your-client" rules on mining operators. This article provides an overview of how proof-of-work cryptocurrency blockchains operate, the parties involved, how GST would normally apply to the sector and to Canadian participants in particular, and why the proposed February 4, 2022 amendments are problematic from a tax policy perspective.
{"title":"Policy Forum: Digital Asset Mining and GST—Tax Policy Versus Public Policy","authors":"David Douglas Robertson, Selena Ing","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.robertson","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.pf.robertson","url":null,"abstract":"On February 4, 2022, the Department of Finance released draft legislation that, if enacted, would deem digital asset mining activities undertaken in Canada not to be \"commercial activities\" for goods and services tax (GST)/harmonized sales tax (HST) purposes. In 1991, Canada introduced the GST to remove sales tax as a cost of doing business in Canada with a view to making Canada's domestically produced goods and services more competitive in international markets. Yet 30 years later, Finance is proposing legislation hidden in the \"special cases\" provisions of the GST legislation that will make the 5 percent to 15 percent GST/HST an input cost to Canadian digital asset miners selling their computing services to non-residents of Canada. Further, it appears that Finance is doing so with an ulterior public policy objective—to impose financial market regulation and \"know-your-client\" rules on mining operators. This article provides an overview of how proof-of-work cryptocurrency blockchains operate, the parties involved, how GST would normally apply to the sector and to Canadian participants in particular, and why the proposed February 4, 2022 amendments are problematic from a tax policy perspective.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122075470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.ptp
L. Mi, Shivani Joshi
Foreign tax credits are an important mechanism to provide relief from double taxation of foreign-source income. With respect to cross-border employment income earned by Canadian taxpayers, there are multiple issues that may create significant complexity and potentially limit the availability of foreign tax credits. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the mechanics of claiming foreign tax credits under the Canadian Income Tax Act and the relevant provisions in certain bilateral income tax treaties. They also review some relevant technical interpretations issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and legislative jurisprudence in Canada with respect to cross-border employment income sourcing and the availability of foreign tax credits on such income.
{"title":"Personal Tax Planning: Foreign Tax Credits for Taxpayers with Cross-Border Employment Income","authors":"L. Mi, Shivani Joshi","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.ptp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.ptp","url":null,"abstract":"Foreign tax credits are an important mechanism to provide relief from double taxation of foreign-source income. With respect to cross-border employment income earned by Canadian taxpayers, there are multiple issues that may create significant complexity and potentially limit the availability of foreign tax credits. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the mechanics of claiming foreign tax credits under the Canadian Income Tax Act and the relevant provisions in certain bilateral income tax treaties. They also review some relevant technical interpretations issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and legislative jurisprudence in Canada with respect to cross-border employment income sourcing and the availability of foreign tax credits on such income.","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121338325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.introduction
Jinyan Li, J. Vidal
{"title":"Pillar Two in Canada?","authors":"Jinyan Li, J. Vidal","doi":"10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.introduction","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2023.71.1.sym.introduction","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":375948,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Tax Journal/Revue fiscale canadienne","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121343753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：